From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24277 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2004 11:42:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24207 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2004 11:42:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2004 11:42:39 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.148.243]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CLS61551 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:42:35 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:42:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-ID: <01c49274$Blat.v2.2.2$507011c0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <41389DFA.5020104@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:38:18 -0400) Subject: Re: [commit] Let {TM,XM,NM}_FILE specify a path Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <41379AC6.90605@gnu.org> <01c491a7$Blat.v2.2.2$8cce1ae0@zahav.net.il> <41389DFA.5020104@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:38:18 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > Perhaps we should rename TM_FILE to something like TM_INCLUDE, then. > > If you prefer, I can rename it to DEPRECATED_TM_INCLUDE when committing > my pending deprecation patch. If we change the functionality of TM_FILE (so it can now name any file), then it doesn't seem to be deprecated. Thus, DEPRECATED_TM_INCLUDE seems an inappropriate name to me. > > Btw, did we decide upon all these recent changes against *_FILE > > thingies? > > Long long ago we decided that GDB would be strictly multi-arch, and > hence that all tm-*.h files (and TM_FILE hackery) should be deleted. Perhaps so, but that doesn't make those changes obvious, IMHO. They should be suggested as RFA's, as we do with any other change whose idea was approved. The fact that the idea was approved merely means that there's no need for an RFC. At least that is how I understand the GDB development and patch-approval process. If I misunderstand, please point me to the text that says otherwise. > If you prefer I can delete the tm-*.h files and TM_FILE configury outright. If this was a joke, then I'm not amused.